|
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin |
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/03.26.2007/1176/UWSP.Genet... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Thanks for posting Steve.
Does anyone know why it wasn't OK to relocate butternut fish to LCO but it is perfectly OK to stock their offspring there?
It seems like a conflict and inconsistent policy. I don't understand that. But my biology bg is in human A&P so I know nothing about fish.
If that has been answered elsewhere, please accept my apologies for asking again.
Thanks,
Jono
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| From the article:
"The stocking of 10- to 12-inch fingerlings to maintain a musky fishery at LCO, where about 90 percent will die before reaching sexual maturity at age 6, poses far less risk to future natural reproduction at LCO than doubling the population instantly with a transfer of hundreds of spawning-age adults from Butternut Lake."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 52
| Sort of old news since many people knew Sloss was working with the DNR anyway but whatever. Good move on LCO in my opinion. We'll see if this actually bears any fruit without the necessary habitat and water quality issues I'd like to see addressed as well. One thing for sure, if they want pike in Little Round Lake, they better take a look at the spawniing habitat they are loosing.
Some progress besides the constant arguments anyway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 52
| My question as well since this gets somewhat convoulted as the information heaps higher and higher. How about stocking LCO with just LCO fish? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| LCO doesn't have the density of fish to make netting them for spawn a successful endeavor. The DNR would spend way too much time, effort and money and most likely wouldn't get what they needed.
If LCO had a high enough population to make stripping spawn there plausible, it wouldn't need to be stocked in the first place. |
|
| |
|
| LCO has about 800 muskies, not many, stocking any fish less than 20" will probably just fatten the belly of the notherns that have overtaken the lake. The have been stock the lake with fry and fingerlings in the past, but by survey results no success in restoring the population of muskies in LCO. Still some big girls in there but few and far between.
Troy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 52
| Such a shame to loose LCO to this and other factors not mentioned; Musky Bay is another loss due to pollution and that lack of water quality enforcement. Chief River on the Flowage along with other habitat there was the same. LCO fish produced monsters. Now one or two if you are lucky.
Just several reasons not to get involved with giving input to the State. Never goes anywhere.
|
|
| |
NEW ARTICLE: UWSP Geneticist Works With WIDNR